District Magistrate cannot review his own selection-committee order; aggrieved parties must approach the Divisional Commissioner.

The petitioner’s father, Suresh Choudhary, was granted a Public Distribution System (PDS) dealership by the District Selection Committee, Nawada, through Memo No. 1028 dated 14 October 2008.

Following a challenge by Ram Balak Chauhan, the Commissioner, Magadh Division, cancelled the dealership in Revision Case No. 48 of 2009 on 28 June 2012.

Suresh Choudhary challenged the cancellation before the High Court, but died during the proceedings; his wife, Sudam Devi, was substituted.

By order dated 29 August 2018, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the District Magistrate to reconsider the matter in accordance with law.

Pursuant to that order, the petitioner and his mother approached the District Magistrate.

The petitioner was advised to apply for the PDS dealership under Clause 9(v) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

Although the District Level Selection Committee found him eligible, his application was rejected by order dated 3 November 2018 on the ground that his sister-in-law/daughter-in-law of the original licensee, Reeta Kumari, was working as a Panchayat Teacher, allegedly attracting the disqualification under Clause 10 of the 2016 Control Order.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that his claim was governed by the Bihar Public Distribution System Control Order, 2007 and that the disqualification under the 2016 Order was inapplicable.

1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal and revision under Section 32 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

2. Whether the petitioner could challenge the District Magistrate’s order before the District Magistrate himself when the District Magistrate had passed the impugned order as head of the District Level Selection Committee.

3. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to approach the Divisional Commissioner after expiry of the prescribed limitation period, with the delay being condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Section 32(iii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 provides an appeal to the District Officer against an order denying or cancelling a PDS licence, ordinarily within thirty days.

Section 32(v) empowers the appellate authority to stay the operation of the order under challenge, while Section 32(vi) permits revision before the Divisional Commissioner where the appeal is not disposed of within the prescribed period or against the appellate order.

The court also applied the principle that an authority cannot review or sit in appeal over its own order, and directed that the petitioner pursue the statutory remedy before the competent higher authority.

The delay in filing the application was directed to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The High Court did not adjudicate the petitioner’s substantive contention regarding the applicability of the 2007 or 2016 Control Order, or the alleged disqualification arising from Reeta Kumari’s employment.

It held that the impugned decision was amenable to the statutory appellate and revisional mechanism under Section 32 of the 2016 Control Order.

Since the District Magistrate had himself passed the impugned decision as head of the District Level Selection Committee, an appeal before him would effectively require him to reconsider his own order; therefore, the petitioner could not obtain an effective appellate remedy before that authority.

The appropriate course was consequently to approach the Divisional Commissioner.

Although the limitation period had expired, the court considered the petitioner’s request and directed the concerned authority to condone the delay and examine the application on merits.

The petitioner was directed to file an appropriate application before the Divisional Commissioner within one month from receipt of the judgment.

The concerned authority was directed to condone the delay in filing and dispose of the application within three months from its filing.

The High Court therefore granted no finding on the validity of the PDS dealership rejection or on the applicability of the alleged disqualification under the 2016 Control Order.